Either Catholics or Mormons have it right...

[lax16]

The Vatican decision not to recognize LDS baptisms was made in June of 2001, in an official statement that can be seen on the Vatican website.

The LDS decision not to recognize other churches’ baptisms was made in April 1830 (within days after it was organized), as attested in D&C 22.

But the Catholic Church’s definition of baptism existed from the very early Church. If the Mormon’s definition of baptism is in conflict, that doesn’t mean you guys defined it first. It means it was different than all of the baptisms that had been performed by Christians for 1800 years.

That is why it is not recognized. Mormons have redefined it and they have purposely gone against all of Christianity on this one.

 

[zerinus]

No problem. Easy to do.

Not accepting the baptism of non-Christian religions and sects is not a recent development, but has been true for over 2000 years. Christian baptism is accomplished by pouring the element of water, or through immersion into water, and then baptizing in the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mormonism denies the Trinity, and the Mormon definition of the nature of God is directly contrary to the Christian view. We do not believe that the Father is made of flesh and bone, for instance, and that He is eternal and the creator of all things. Nothing existed before Him. He did not organize existing matter to form creation. I could, obviously, go on and on. The point is, we do not recognize the God you describe and so to be baptized into such a God would not constitute a valid baptism. This has always been true.

The recent statement by the Vatican concerning Mormon baptism is due to several factors, in my estimation. Mormon doctrine has changed substantially as time moves on. The Book of Mormon appears to be very Trinitarian as well as some of the earlier statements by Mormons. Today it is a very different picture. The Church moves very slow and carefully before making a statement such as this. Once the Mormon church was clear as to its doctrine concerning the nature of God, among other things, the Church could make a final determination as to the validity of Mormon baptism. There is also the fact that the Mormon church has not been significant until very recently, in relation to the history of the Church. It does not make proclamations about every small sect that appears. So there’s a feather in your cap.

The Church recognizes the baptism of an atheist in an emergency as long as a valid baptsim is performed. Mormon baptism is not valid, even in an emergency situation, for the reasons I gave above. There is no rat here. It makes perfect sense. If a person has the right medicine, even though he is not a doctor, he can save someone’s life. On the other hand, even if that person is a doctor and gives the person the wrong medicine the person will die. In baptism it is the power of the sacrament, the incredible free gift of God that brings us life, that matters, not the one giving it or the one receiving it. This has always been consistent within the Catholic Church as well.

On the subject of the RCC decision not to recognize LDS baptism, have a look at this article in my Blog. It explains a lot of things that would take too long to explain here. On the subject of whether Mormons believe in the Trinity or not, have a look at this article.

 

[zerinus]

“I was answered by God that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them;…”

• Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith History 1:18-20

“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world”

• Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270

“…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.”

• **Prophet Joseph Smith **, The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60

“Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers’ sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. …You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89

“Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.”

• Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167

“Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness.” (p. 266). “For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation …Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the ‘Christian’ churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men.”- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282

“…the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, …But with the Bible it was not and is not so…it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was.”

• Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13

“And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foudation of this (Mormon) church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth…”

• Supposedly Jesus Christ Himself, Doctrine and Covenants 1:30

The answer to that was given in post #77 of this thread. Like I said, your posts are rapidly reaching a point where they are no longer worth replying to. If it is a matter of repeating the same thing over and over again, there comes a point where it is no longer a worthwhile exercise.

 

[KathleenGee]

Lax,

Some how there are Mormons on CAF who claim complete denial of the constructs of Mormonism…

The first statement in regards to J. Smith was that in fact, after he was given revelations, he then tried to join a Methodist church, and was rejected. So he was not kept aside.

These constructs alone invalidate a baptism.

Note the language and perspective of the past century, Mormonism’s work to gain credibility, and how it presents itself reflects its own fixation on Catholic…they are using a tone like ours…but the reasoning alludes me…it is rationalizing a new system of faith based on a new mythology.

 

[SteveVH]

On the subject of the RCC decision not to recognize LDS baptism, have a look at this article in my Blog. It explains a lot of things that would take too long to explain here. On the subject of whether Mormons believe in the Trinity or not, have a look at this article.

Your blog not only doesn’t hit the bulls eye, it misses the target completely. You seem to believe that the validity of a sacrament should be based upon what nice things the Mormons say about us and that they treat us better than some of the Protestants whose baptisms we do recognize. Come on, zerinus.

And then you pull the we believe in the Trinity bit. You know, the one no one else believes in or recognizes. And the word games continue. This reminds me of the Mormon TV adds which give away Bibles and say they believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. They remain silent about the rest of their “scriptures”. It is a disguise.

You have completely dodged the points I made as to why our Church rejects Mormon baptism. Please just address the points and do not send me to your blogs again.

 

[Anthony_V]

As long as Zerinus believes in the apostacy of the Catholic church, then there’s little reason in bothering him with the Church’s doctrine/belief. Ignorance is as great as an opposition to Truth as you make it out to be.

In addition Truth (not just truth with a lower-case “t”) asserts that all other belief systems are wrong to a degree and not simply less correct, than your own; That is in relationship to Zerinus’ arguement. It’s merely defending, not providing premises that prove the doctrine of the Church to be wrong VIA a philisophical basis.

 

[zerinus]

Your blog not only doesn’t hit the bulls eye, it misses the target completely. You seem to believe that the validity of a sacrament should be based upon what nice things the Mormons say about us and that they treat us better than some of the Protestants whose baptisms we do recognize. Come on, zerinus.

And then you pull the we believe in the Trinity bit. You know, the one no one else believes in or recognizes. And the word games continue. This reminds me of the Mormon TV adds which give away Bibles and say they believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. They remain silent about the rest of their “scriptures”. It is a disguise.

All I can say is read them again, because it looks like you never understood them. Maybe you are getting tired, it is time to go to bed! Read them again in the morning, you might understand them better then!

 

[Anthony_V]

And on second thought, I would consider prayer on either side of the equation (Mormon or Catholic) that asks for the absolute Truth to be known by both one and the other. I would suppose that objectivity to be more accurate than the subjectivity of a human. It is quite evident that we have “all fallen short of the Glory of God”.

 

[Roy5]

** It has dawned upon me in recent years that Catholicism and Mormonism operate in similar ways.** Both have a ‘Vatican’ as it were, one in Rome and the other in Salt Lake City. Both have a strict hierarchy led by one person who can receive revelations from God. Pius XII, for example, in 1950 defined infallibly the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption. The LDS president in the mid-70s declared that Black men and women no longer were under the curse of God, and was it about 1890 the Lord told him that polygamy had to go? Both disallow women to be priests. Both are fundamentalists in that they proclaim certain doctrines that everyone in their faith must adhere to.

 **Evangelical Protestants,** of course, don't have such a central authority. They do not have a 'pope' or a 'president'. But, like Catholics and Mormons, they have a definite set of doctrines which adherents are expected to accept.

** Then there are more liberal Protestants,** numerous in what often are called the mainline denominations - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, some Lutherans, even some Baptists, etc. These usually have ‘big tent’ congregations where communicants who may have different views of theology gather together, perhaps even debate some issues in Bible study groups. They are apt to be well-organized, but without any ‘Vatican’. They cooperate together through local councils of churches, the National Council and the World Council and generally embrace ecumenism and generally respect the major non-Christian religions as well.

What I have increasingly found attractive about mainline Protestantism (and my Dad’s family was of French-Canadian Catholic heritage) is that there is real freedom of thought, rather like we emphasize in the USA. If, for example, one believes the story of Noah, when God drowned everybody on earth but one family, fine. If they feel that this is a legend or a myth and can’t accept the idea that the God of love and forgiveness, the God revealed by Christ, would commit such a heinous deed, even murdering children and babies, some still in the womb, fine, also. I admire and increasingly treasure that freedom and diversity of thought.

** So, overall I find the LDS more similar to Catholicism** and to many evangelical Protestants when it comes to insistence that there is one way, one truth, and that is the way they are following and the truth they claim to be embracing.

** For myself,** after many years of reading, researching, meditating, and praying, have come to have greater and greater appreciation for mainline Protestantism. It has more room, it appears, for people (like me) who are so awed by this mammoth, magnificant, miraculous and mysterious world that we find it hard to accept the idea that any of us has a true and full grasp of ultimate truth.

I don’t even know what’s going on across the street at the moment. How can I pretend to understand this universe of perhaps a million or a billion solar systems? So, I think a lot about doctrine, but it involves considerable guesswork. At the same time, my faith in God is deep, and I try to be a faithful follower of Christ. It was Jesus, remember, who answered the question ‘how do I inherit eternal life’, not with complex theology, but by telling the inquirer to love God and one another, which he illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan. And, in another parable, when God was dividing the sheep from the goats in the day of judgment, Jesus again did not mention theology or church affiliation. “I was hungry and you fed me…I was a stranger and you took me in.”

** God bless everybody, of every creed, color and country. Let us work together to make religion a bridge instead of a barrier.**

 

[SteveVH]

All I can say is read them again, because it looks like you never understood them. Maybe you are getting tired, it is time to go to bed! Read them again in the morning, you might understand them better then!

I just went throught them again and I understand them perfectly, just as I did the first time. My response has not changed. The first time around I did miss the part where you accuse the Church of engaging in infantile behavior and making this proclamation to get back at the Mormons for not recognizing our baptisms. As you can imagine, I was very impressed.

 

[lax16]

The answer to that was given in post #77 of this thread. Like I said, your posts are rapidly reaching a point where they are no longer worth replying to. If it is a matter of repeating the same thing over and over again, there comes a point where it is no longer a worthwhile exercise.

zerinus - That is fine, do not answer any more of my posts.
Please stop saying things such as:

**If they did, they were wrong, because Joseph Smith never taught such a thing. Mormonism teaches that there was a universal Apostasy, but it does not teach that the Catholic Church or any other church is an abomination. **__________________

because you are the one saying the same thing over and over.

I haven’t read post #77 and since you have bothered to counter the words of Joseph Smith here, I will leave them to stand on their own.

Good night!

 

[SnakeMauler]

Mormonism= not true for a infinite number of reasons. Let’s stop making so many topics about them and instigating them because they’ll think that because “everyone persecuted Jesus” if everyone persecuted them, then they’ll surely be ritght’ just like how Jesus was right but had a lot of opposition.

 

[zerinus]

I just went throught them again and I understand them perfectly, just as I did the first time. My response has not changed. The first time around I did miss the part where you accuse the Church of engaging in infantile behavior and making this proclamation to get back at the Mormons for not recognizing our baptisms. As you can imagine, I was very impressed.

Thank you, I thought you would be!

 

[zerinus]

zerinus - That is fine, do not answer any more of my posts.
Please stop saying things such as:

**If they did, they were wrong, because Joseph Smith never taught such a thing. Mormonism teaches that there was a universal Apostasy, but it does not teach that the Catholic Church or any other church is an abomination. **__________________

because you are the one saying the same thing over and over.

I haven’t read post #77 and since you have bothered to counter the words of Joseph Smith here, I will leave them to stand on their own.

Good night!

The more I read your posts the more convinced I become that you don’t want to debate or discuss, you just want to argue; and it becomes a futile exercise after a while.

 

[onenow1]

But the Catholic Church’s definition of baptism existed from the very early Church. If the Mormon’s definition of baptism is in conflict, that doesn’t mean you guys defined it first. It means it was different than all of the baptisms that had been performed by Christians for 1800 years.

That is why it is not recognized. Mormons have redefined it and they have purposely gone against all of Christianity on this one.

Absolutely ! Especially with this great cloud of witnesses below !

Pope Clement I[A.D. 80]). Ignatius [A.D. 107]Polycarp of Smyrna A.D. 125]).Aristides [A.D. 135])Justin Martyr [A.D. 150]). Tatian the Syrian [A.D. 170]). Theophilus of Antioch [A.D. 181]). Irenaeus[A.D. 189]). Tertullian [A.D. 197]). Minucius Felix [A.D. 210]).Aphraahat the Persian Sage [A.D. 226]). Cyril of Jerusalem [A.D. 350]).Epiphanius of Salamis A.D. [374]). Augustine [A.D.395]

Peace

 

[Jim_Dandy]

As far as the relationship between Peter and Christ, it was a unique relationship indeed–Peter was “you” and Christ was “I”, and Christ gave to Peter a unique and singular role at that moment in time. Nothing says that it was a delegable role nor a delegable authority.

The most ludicrous aspect of the LDS “gospel” is that the Bible per se didn’t exist until the end of the fourth century A.D., yet Mormonism claims, without a shread of historical, literary, archaeological, or monumental evidence, that the Catholic Church, who wrote the New Testament and formed the Bible, became ‘apostate’ at the end of the first Christian century. Ergo, Mormons allege that the Church was ‘apostate’ when she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the very same time, in the very same councils, she canonized the Septuagint writings she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She named her entire collection of sacred writings “tá Biblia” – the “Little Books” – the Bible.

A cause cannot be greater than its effect. If Scripture is infallible, as the LDS assert, its cause – the Catholic Church – must also be infallible. Infallibility and apostasy are obviously contradictory.

Jim Dandy

 

[ParkerD]

The most ludicrous aspect of the LDS “gospel” is that the Bible per se didn’t exist until the end of the fourth century A.D., yet Mormonism claims, without a shread of historical, literary, archaeological, or monumental evidence, that the Catholic Church, who wrote the New Testament and formed the Bible, became ‘apostate’ at the end of the first Christian century. Ergo, Mormons allege that the Church was ‘apostate’ when she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the very same time, in the very same councils, she canonized the Septuagint writings she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She named her entire collection of sacred writings “tá Biblia” – the “Little Books” – the Bible.

A cause cannot be greater than its effect. If Scripture is infallible, as the LDS assert, its cause – the Catholic Church – must also be infallible. Infallibility and apostasy are obviously contradictory.

Jim Dandy

Jim,

It seems you among a few others fulfill the prophecy given to Nephi by the Lord God as recorded in a Book of Mormon text:

“…they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people?..”

 

[SteveVH]

Jim,

It seems you among a few others fulfill the prophecy given to Nephi by the Lord God as recorded in a Book of Mormon text:

“…they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people?..”

Jim makes a great point and I give no credence to anything given to or said by Nephi. The point is that the Mormon church, and everyone else, for that matter, who claims to be “Christian”, had better hope, with all they have, that the Catholic Church was led and guided by the Holy Spirit when it determined the canon of scripture; when it chose, from all the writings circulating at that time, those writings which were the inspired word of God, and those which weren’t.

If it is agreed that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in this endeavor, then the question must be asked. Why would the Holy Spirit guide an apostate church? I have heard watered down versions of the apostasy claim to where the only thing lost was “priestly authority”, otherwise the Church retained truth. Of course, then you hear that the Church corrupted the canonized writings which were once "plain and precious". Basically the story is all over the place and it would be nice to get a straight answer once and for all.

 

[pablope]

Jim,

It seems you among a few others fulfill the prophecy given to Nephi by the Lord God as recorded in a Book of Mormon text:

“…they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people?..”

Well, I did not have time to go through all the posts and am not sure if this has been posted…but here is a comparison of the Bible vs the Book of Mormon…archaelogists searching for evidence of the truthfulness of both…

youtube.com/watch?v=dTtq62XQ4jw

 

[SteveVH]

For myself, after many years of reading, researching, meditating, and praying, have come to have greater and greater appreciation for mainline Protestantism. It has more room, it appears, for people (like me) who are so awed by this mammoth, magnificant, miraculous and mysterious world that we find it hard to accept the idea that any of us has a true and full grasp of ultimate truth.

Roy, none of us “has a full grasp of ultimate truth”, and anyone who pretends that they do is a fool. We do, however, have revealed truth from God which we must accept to the extent of our ability to do so. The question is, really, who possesses the fullness of this truth? Would God reveal this truth to mankind without some authority to teach and interpret this truth, to insure that the truth revealed is the truth that is taught?. Would He reveal it to us and then just say “good luck figuring it out”?

Man did not arrive at truth on his own. It was given to a Church in order to insure that it would be safeguarded. Are you interested more in what the human intellect can conjure or are you more interested in the truth of God as revealed to mankind?

** It was Jesus, remember, who answered the question ‘how do I inherit eternal life’, not with complex theology, but by telling the inquirer to love God and one another, which he illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan. And, in another parable, when God was dividing the sheep from the goats in the day of judgment, Jesus again did not mention theology or church affiliation. “I was hungry and you fed me…I was a stranger and you took me in.” **

First of all, there would be no reason to mention Church affiliation as there was only one Church, as far as Christ was concerned. But you are correct in this; it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, if you do not live the Gospel by feeding the hungry and taking strangers in, then you will have no place in heaven. God didn’t just give us a book full of good ideas, He meant for us to live them out in a real way. No, He commanded us to live them out in a real way.

This truth, however, does not mean that Christ did not found one Church, with him as the head, and give it power and authority to speak and act in His name. His Church is where we are nourished by the sacraments, that we may be able to carry out the work of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.